In a letter to the Department of Health (DH) programme board’s chair, Ken Jarrold – sent on September 22 and seen by C+D – the Pharmaceutical Group of European Union (PGEU) said it would be a “tragedy” if the “role of the pharmacist in the pharmacy was no longer given the priority it deserves”.

Earlier this month, C+D exclusively published detailed proposals for pharmacy technicians to be handed legal responsibility for supervising the supply of prescription-only medicines (POMs), which had been submitted to the DH programme board.

A working group, established by the UK’s four chief pharmaceutical officers, also suggested amending legislation to allow a pharmacy technician to, in the pharmacist’s absence, undertake the “supervision role” of determining when medicine supplies can go ahead and “overseeing the activities of other, non-regulated, pharmacy staff”, according to confidential documents seen by C+D.

PGEU secretary general, Jūratė Švarcaitė told C+D that Mr Jarrold had responded to the letter, repeating the DH's assertion that a public consultation on the supervision proposals will be held before any amendments are made to the law.

Pharmacists are “indispensable”

In its letter, the PGEU said it “fully appreciates the value of pharmacy technicians”. But it stressed that having a pharmacist available in a pharmacy to deal with patient requests and supervise other staff “is an indispensable element in ensuring patient safety”.

“Other members of the pharmacy team, such as technicians…do not hold the same level of education and professional training – and in some cases ethical obligation – and therefore cannot hold the responsibility to the patient,” it added.

The PGEU – which aims to “advance the contribution of community pharmacists” across the European Union – said any policy that would “reduce the involvement of pharmacists in the pharmacy would be short-sighted” and would “trade short-term and uncertain economic gains…against the rights and needs of patients”.

Programme board “disappointed” by media leak

Speaking to C+D yesterday (September 27), Ms Švarcaitė said Mr Jarrold (pictured above) mentioned in the letter that he is “quite disappointed that [the proposals] have leaked into the media”.

Ms Švarcaitė welcomed the fact that the programme board plans to share its proposals with stakeholders before making recommendations to the government.

“Decisions like this should not be made without consulting, not only with the pharmacy profession, but with the general public,” she stressed.

Response doesn’t deny plans

However, “the response from [Mr Jarrold] is disappointing in a sense that it does not deny the fact that they are considering allowing UK pharmacies to operate without a pharmacist”, Ms Švarcaitė added.

“We do not think that a responsible pharmacist can ensure quality of pharmacy services and patient safety, unless he or she is immediately available to patients at all times,” she stressed.

The PGEU is planning to respond to the promised consultation.

UK sets the example

The PGEU looks to the UK as an example of good community pharmacy practice, Ms Švarcaitė said. She listed the new medicine service and medicines use reviews as examples of “good things that [UK] pharmacists are doing”.

According to the PGEU letter, “other EU governments” have previously considered and rejected policies that would relax the requirement for a pharmacist to be present in a pharmacy, “because they recognise the importance of having pharmacists available in pharmacies”.

Last week, the Commonwealth Pharmacists Association warned that allowing UK pharmacy technicians to supervise medicines supply would be "a disaster" for low-income countries. Read the full story here.